The
influence of politics on public policy is not new. But the current
tendency to support ideology and special interests over sound science
in federal government decision-making is unprecedented. The following
are but a few of the examples of this trend.
Science
Interview Highlights Contrasting Platforms of Presidential Candidates October
2004—Science magazine has published the unedited responses of interviews
with President Bush and John Kerry on a range of science-related issues,
including stem cell research, economic aid for international family planning
programs and the scientific priorities of the two candidates. The responses
demonstrate the major differences in their policies in many areas (including
public health) and highlight John Kerry’s support for many of the
initiatives which special interest groups seek to actively uphold.
Bush
maintains his position that he will continue to place restrictions on
federal funding for stem cell research as he will not “endorse”
the additional destruction of human embryos. Meanwhile, John Kerry states
that, if elected, he will lift the current ban on federal funding to advance
scientific research and help find cures for over 100 million Americans
suffering from debilitating illnesses. Bush continues to defend his restrictions
on foreign aid for abortion, and will not allow any taxpayer funds to
assist clinics or groups abroad that perform abortions, counsel abortion
as a family-planning option or lobby foreign governments on abortion policy.
While this may be the only source of funding for many other procedures
including HIV testing, prenatal care and counseling for women who could
not support another child, Bush claims his policy prevents the “promotion”
of abortions abroad. Kerry continues to uphold a consistent voting record
of opposing the global gag rule and restrictions on abortion and family
planning domestically and abroad.
Scientists
Join the Campaign Trail to Preserve Core Values in Science
October
2004—A group of scientists, consisting of ten Nobel Laureates and
two former presidential advisors, have joined together to form Scientists
and Engineers for Change. The new group of activists protests the Bush
Administration’s trend of ignoring sound scientific advice on issues
of stem cell research, energy, public health and the environment and replacing
it with ideological and political interests. Many of these scientists
also signed onto the statement written earlier this year by the Union
of Concerned Scientists—in collaboration with dozens of Nobel Laureates—that
depicts the Administration’s consistent manipulation and suppression
of science.
The
group has no direct ties to President Kerry, and consists of both Democratic
and Republican members. They plan to take their message to colleges and
universities in a number of battleground states to emphasize the relevance
of science and technology in society and the importance of these issues
in the upcoming presidential election. According to Dr. Douglass Osheroff,
a professor of physics at Stanford University and a key member of the
committee: “I am not a democrat and I have never played a significant
role in politics… we must have an administration that listens to
the scientific community, not one that manipulates and minimizes scientific
input.”1
Lorentzen,
A. “Scientists Hit Campaign Trail for Kerry”. Associated
Press. September 30, 2004.
The
Increasing Politicization of Abortion in the Presidential Campaign September 2004— From the political conventions to the candidates’
platforms to the future appointment of Supreme Court justices—the
issue of abortion is becoming increasingly politicized in an effort to
acquire votes in the upcoming presidential campaign. Recently, delegates
at the Republican National Convention reaffirmed the party’s platform
against abortion rights and endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban
abortion. Though democratic women voters continue to support Kerry given
his perfect record of upholding abortion rights, he has frequently appeared
moderate in his views, and has openly declared his personal opposition
to abortion in an effort to acquire swing voters. Therefore, Kerry maintains
only a slight hold over female voters, though George W. Bush has begun
a ‘W is for Women’ campaign led by the first lady, to acquire
more female voters.
The
politicization of abortion will not only play a key role in determining
the new President, but may determine the future of Roe v. Wade, given
the current narrow margin (5-4) of support for abortion rights in the
Supreme Court. While Kerry has declared he will nominate judges that would
defend the constitutional right to abortion, Bush opposes “activist”
judges and says he will only support those judges that adhere to a strict
interpretation of the constitution. Moreover, the Supreme Court is expected
to hear many cases in the coming term concerning constitutional challenges
to late-term abortion, which President Bush openly opposes. Being that
three Supreme Court judges are nearing retirement age, the politics surrounding
the abortion debate will not only contribute to the upcoming election,
but may ultimately tip in the scale in determining a woman’s ability
to receive a safe and legal abortion in America.
Nature
Publication Reports Differences in Candidates’ Support for Scientific
Issues September 2004—Nature.com, the online arm of the international
science journal, recently examined Bush and Kerry’s responses to
questions concerning high priority science issues. Nature created a questionnaire
which asked both candidates about their policies in a range of issues
including climate change, nuclear weapons and stem cell research. Given
the significant role that science is likely to play in the upcoming presidential
election, the recently published report provides an in-depth analysis
of the key issues and compares the candidates’ opposing stances.
The report highlights Bush’s consistent trend of disregarding key
scientific evidence or blaming uncertainties in data in order to advance
his political policies, particularly with respect to the environment.
Among
the 15 questions asked of the candidates, the greatest difference in the
candidates’ responses was in the area of stem cell research. While
Bush defends his current policy by saying the benefits of stem cell research
are being exaggerated, Kerry advances the scientists’ view that
expanded federal funding could be the key to uncovering cures for debilitating
diseases. While Bush claims the benefits of stem cell research should
not be “over-politicized”—the report is in direct response
to the growing number of documents released over recent months regarding
the Administration’s trend of suppressing science to favor political
policies.
The
Use of Ideology in Science is Key Factor to Unplanned Pregnancies and
Abortions September
2004—A recent report by the United Nations Population Fund found
that 350 million women in developing countries lack access to contraception.
In response, the head of the United Nations Foundation criticized President
Bush’s anti-abortion policies, drastic cutting of family planning
funds, and the consistent use of ideology over science as a major contributor
to these results.1 The findings were
part of a mid-point progress report of the targets set at the 1994 International
Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo. The targets of
the conference were intended to provide family planning options to ultimately
prevent unwanted pregnancies—many of which end in abortion—as
well as curtail the spread of HIV/AIDS in order to help reduce world poverty
and improve women’s rights in developing countries.
President
Bush has dropped United States support for the Cairo agreement and severely
cut funding for international family planning programs claiming US support
encourages abortion. Meanwhile, the absence of United Nations support—the
sole source of family planning funds for many organizations and clinics
in developing countries—has resulted in 52 million unplanned pregnancies,
nearly half of which ended in abortion in 2003 alone. Moreover, obstacles
to safe and effective contraception resulted in the deaths of 500,000
women due to pregnancy, childbirth and abortion-related complications
in 2003. The report states that if contraception were provided to the
137 million women worldwide who wish to delay birth or avoid pregnancy
altogether, 23 million unplanned pregnancies, 22 million abortions and
1.4 million infant deaths could be prevented.2
Alvarez,
L. U.N. Cites Gains for Women Worldwide but Health Issues Linger. New
York Times. August 31, 2004.
U.N.
Report Calls for More Money on Birth Control. St.Paul Pioneer Press.
September 5, 2004.
Recent
Study Confirms Waste of Human Embryos
August 2004—A
recent study published in Politics and Life Sciences found that over 84
percent of fertility clinics discard unused embryos resulting from in-vitro
fertilization, while 400,000 embryos remain unused and frozen in storage.
The results of the study are particularly noteworthy given the current
debate over stem cell research; both advocates and opponents of loosened
federal restrictions oppose discarding of unused embryos. Opponents protest
that the process of harvesting stem cells destroys the embryos and thus
constitutes a destruction of life. However, the results of this study
support scientists who argue that, instead of being discarded, these embryos
can serve as invaluable resources in finding cures for debilitating diseases
such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and juvenile diabetes.
One
round of IVF produces multiple embryos in order to increase the chance
of successful implantation. Embryos are the only source of human stem
cells, which have the potential to grow into any type of cell in the body.
Through research, scientists hope to use stem cells to create specialized
cells that can potentially treat an array of currently incurable illnesses.
The researchers also found that 60 percent of the embryos are donated
for research and 19 percent are donated for the training of doctors.
Political
Science at the Republican National Convention
August 2004—Senate Majority Leader Frist defended Bush’s policies
at the Republican National Convention and attacked Kerry for his plan
to expand federal funding of stem cell research. Michael Reagan reinforced
the party’s opposition to abortion rights and delegates at the Republican
National Convention proudly stated the party’s objective to institute
a constitutional amendment banning abortion if Bush is re-elected. Senator
Brownback defended the President’s restrictions on stem cell research,
opposition to abortion rights and vast increases in funding on abstinence
only education, despite the fact that recent studies greatly undermine
the effectiveness of these programs in reducing risky adolescent behavior.
Scientific
debates have bled into politics and crossed over party lines, but in an
effort by Republicans to acquire swing votes in the upcoming election,
have only worsened the interference of politics in science. In response
to Republican opposition to expanding federal funding, the National Institutes
of Health is trying to reduce the cost of stem-cell lines for researchers
by starting a center devoted to turning basic stem-cell research into
medical treatments using existing cell lines.
According to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC news poll, 51% of Americans
believe Bush’s policy on stem cell research is wrong or questionable.
However, Bush claims, "I think my administration has struck a proper
balance between science and ethics.1
Meanwhile, a republican delegation proposed an amendment banning all stem
cell research, though the measure failed.
Stem
Cell Research Plays Key Role in Presidential Debate
August 2004—The debate over stem cell research may play a pivotal
role in the upcoming presidential election. Bush supporters claim that
the Kerry campaign is oversimplifying the issue by implying that fewer
restrictions on stem cell research would mean
definitive cures for debilitating diseases such as Alzheimer’s,
Parkinsons and juvenile diabetes. However, Kerry supporters maintain their
platform that Bush’s policy—which permits federal funding
only on existing stem cell lines—will greatly slow scientific progress
and cause U.S. scientists to leave the country altogether in an effort
to seek fewer restrictions. While it is uncommon for one issue to gain
this much mainstream attention, the increased media coverage of the issue
has helped in heightening attention to the Administration’s trend
of politicizing science.
Despite
the Bush Administration’s claim that there were 60 stem cell lines
available for research when he implemented his policy two years ago, researchers
are greatly concerned because only 21 of these are currently viable. The
Kerry campaign has continued to protest the administration’s use
of the issue to advance their anti-abortion platform by politicizing an
issue that could lead to instrumental scientific developments. ''Here
in America, we don't sacrifice science for ideology," Kerry has said.
''We're going to lift the ban on stem cell research. We're going to listen
to our scientists and stand up for science.”1
In a recent poll, 1 out of every 5 Bush supporters admitted they may change
their vote if Kerry sought an expansion in the issue of stem cell research.
Learn more: Savage, C. “Stem Cell Issue Opens up Campaign Divide.”
The Boston Globe. August 8, 2004.
HHS
to Hand-Select Scientific Advisors The
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will now regulate who
may serve as a scientific advisor to the World Health Organization (WHO).
Previously, WHO could seek the help of expert scientists directly—depending
upon the specific needs of the project. Under the new law, WHO must now
place their requests through the Office of Global Health, who will then
decide which (if any) governmental scientists can support them. This new
process is expected to take a minimum of three weeks, regardless of the
potential time-sensitive needs of a project. Though HHS claims the new
policy is an effort to create accountability within the agency, the written
directive of the law reminds HHS employees that they serve as “representatives”
of the US Government at all times and therefore must “advocate government
policies”.1
“Does
Washington Really Know Best?” The Lancet. July 10, 2004. Volume
364. page 114.
Researchers
Protest the Suppression of Science
July 2004—On behalf of over 4,000 scientists,
including 48 Nobel Laureates, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
has released a report entitled “Scientific Integrity in Policymaking:
Further Investigation of the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science.”
The report is the second by UCS this year to accuse the Bush Administration
of distorting and suppressing scientific evidence when it may differ from
their policies. Specifically, the 34-page report protests the removal
of abortion and condom information on public websites, the FDA’s
decision to reject the sale of emergency contraception over-the-counter,
and the denial and termination of scientific experts to governmental advisory
panels based on their political beliefs. Scientists are deeply concerned
that this climate will cause researchers to leave the government altogether,
following the trend of several notable scientists who have done so in
the last year. According to one UCS researcher and Professor of Physics,
the loss of scientists has severe consequences: “It can take another
generation or two to get back to where you were in the first place.”1
Chang, K. Scientists Say White House Questioned Their Politics. The
New York Times. July 9, 2004.
Learn
more: Navarro, M. Experts in Sex Field Say Conservatives Interfere
with Health and Research. The New York Times. July 11, 2004.
Senators
Seek GAO Investigation into FDA Rejection of Plan B® OTC
June 2004—Senators are calling for a GAO investigation into the
FDA’s rejection of Barr Laboratories’ application to make
Plan B®
emergency contraception available over the counter. The decision—which
came down in May from the Acting Center Director—was startling to
the reproductive health community given the overwhelming recommendation
by two expert scientific advisory committees to approve the product late
last year. The decision was particularly unusual because the FDA rarely
goes against the advisory committee’s recommendation and is also
never issued by the Acting Director, but always by the scientific reviewers.
This evidence, combined with the fact that the decision was issued following
a letter from 49 conservative members of Congress urging President Bush
not to approve the switch, implies that it was one motivated by politics
as opposed to the scientific evidence.
While
the FDA defended their decision claiming there was insufficient evidence
to determine the products’ safety, one member of the advisory committee
stated that Plan B is the safest product they have ever evaluated. Dr.
Jenkins, the director of FDA’s Office of New Drugs admitted in internal
memos that Plan B does not pose any risks for younger women, that the
FDA was applying more rigorous examination to this product than any other
drugs, and that the Agency had never before considered contraceptive use
by young women as potential for risk.
Abortion
Opponent Re-appointed to FDA Reproductive Advisory Committee
June 2004—Dr. David Hager, a widely known opponent of abortion rights,
has been asked by the FDA to serve for one more year on the Advisory Committee
for Reproductive Health Drugs. Scientists, reproductive rights groups
and the women’s health community at large are protesting the announcement
given Hager’s well-known track record against reproductive rights.
Namely, his refusal to prescribe contraception to unmarried patients,
his efforts to overturn the approval of mifepristone and—most recently—his
decision not to approve the switch of emergency contraception to over-the-counter
status, has advocates concerned that he will compromise the integrity
of the FDA and allow his personal views to overshadow his public duty.1
Hager
was one of four members who voted against the switch— claiming insufficient
evidence—despite the extensive clinical data demonstrating the safety
and efficacy of the product and the overwhelming recommendation to approve
the product by nineteen expert scientists. Hager has accepted the nomination
claiming he will be able to objectively evaluate data and arrive at sound
decisions. When asked about his vote for the time-sensitive contraception
following the hearing he said: “What we heard today was frequently
about individuals who did not want to take responsibility for their actions
and wanted a medication to relieve those consequences."2
Kaufman, M. Abortion Foe to Be Reappointed to FDA Panel. Washington
Post. June 29, 2004: A6.
PPFA: Re-Appointment of Dr. David Hager to FDA Committee is Bad Medicine;
Anti-Choice Ideologue Compromises FDA’s Credibility. U.S. Newswire.
June 28, 2004.
Scientists
Claim that
Administration Minimized Risks of Mercury
April
2004-Scientists, environmentalists and politicians are speaking out against
a report on Mercury emissions that was altered by White House staff before
it was released by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Scientists
protest that White House members, mostly from the Office of Management
and Budget, deleted or modified information on mercury emissions to minimize
the health risks associated with coal-fired power plants and subsequent
levels of mercury in fish. Though the National Academy of Sciences found
in 2000 that children and fetuses exposed to elevated levels of mercury
can experience brain damage, the resulting report often changed the findings
of 'are' to 'can' and 'may' implying that there is a lack of scientific
evidence to support the importance of rigorous reductions in mercury emissions.
White House officials argue that the changes reflect the typical back
and forth of developing regulations.1
Reference
Lee
J. White House Minimized the Risks of Mercury in Proposed Rules, Scientists
Say. Washington Post. April 7, 2004.
March
2004-Embryonic stem cells can develop into many different kinds of tissues,
raising hopes that they might ultimately contribute to medical therapies
for a number of chronic diseases. At the same time, some pro-life activists
have opposed the use of these cells, which are usually derived from embryos
created for in vitro fertilization. Two years ago, President Bush banned
federal funding for research using new embryonic stem cell lines. As a
compromise, his policy allowed research to continue on existing cell lines,
of which he said more than 60 were available.1
When scientists challenged that number, the Administration continued to
claim that dozens of cell lines were available to researchers. Though
the number of available lines was later determined to be 78, an unpublished
NIH analysis circulated in March revealed that only 15 stem cell lines
are currently available for federally funded research. The new figure
takes into account lines that are duplicates, that have failed to grow
or died, that foreign labs have refused to ship, and lines that are not
available to researchers. NIH Administrator James Battey said that the
best-case scenario under the current policy is for 23 lines to become
available.2
Lemonick
M. Stem cells in limbo: two years after President Bush said the U.S.
had all the cell lines it needed, where did they go? Time. August
11, 2003: 51.
Gillis J and Weiss R. NIH: Few Stem Cell Colonies Likely Available for
Research. Washington Post. March 3, 2004: A3.
Bush
Removes Two Members of Bioethics Council who differ from Administration
on Controversial Issues
February
2004-President Bush dismissed two members of his handpicked Council on
Bioethics and replaced them with three members who hold more conservative
views.1 The council was developed in
2001 to advise the President on "bioethical issues that may emerge
as a consequence of advances in biomedical science and technology".2
Though both ejected members are expert scientists with flawless scientific
credentials, both hold views that typically run counter to the majority
of other council members. Blackburn is a renowned biologist at the University
of California at San Francisco and William May is a professor and respected
scholar of ethics at Southern Methodist University. Michael Gazzaniga,
a Dartmouth neuroscientist and current council member remarks on Blackburn's
dismissal, "It will be a loss for sure."1
References
Weiss R. Bush Ejects Two From Bioethics Council. Washington Post,
February 28, 2004: A6.
Federal
Agency Removes Information that Protects Gays and Lesbians from Job Discrimination
February 2004-Under direction of Scott Bloch, the republican appointed
chair of the Office of Special Council (OSC), the OSC has removed data
concerning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation from their
complaint forms and educational pamphlets. Bloch announced that he is
not sure if federal workers are protected from discrimination claims based
on their sexuality, and "has removed these materials until a thorough
legal analysis can be completed to clarify this area of the law".1
However, Congressional Representatives and Gay and Lesbian rights groups
are criticizing Bloch for inciting fear among gay and lesbian employees,
overreaching his power, and allegedly going back on his word to "protect
federal employees against unlawful discrimination related to their sexual
orientation."2
FDA
Delays Decision to Approve Emergency Contraception
February
2004-On December 16, 2003, an expert FDA Advisory Panel overwhelmingly
(23-4) recommended that Emergency Contraception, Plan B ®, become
available over-the-counter. Though the FDA typically follows the recommendation
of the panel, on February 13, 2004, they announced their decision to delay
final approval of the product by three months.1
They cited the need to review additional studies related to its safety
and efficacy before making a decision. Specifically, they plan to examine
if sexual activity and use of the product among teenagers will increase
if available without a prescription.2
The
panel of experts unanimously voted that Plan B ® is safe for use without
a prescription and no current research supports an association between
expanded EC access and an increase in unsafe sexual behavior.3
Taken within 72 hours of unprotected sexual intercourse, the pills are
at least 89 percent effective at preventing pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation
or fertilization of an egg, and data indicates it has no effect on an
existing pregnancy.4
References
Kolata G. FDA Delays Morning-After Contraceptive. New York Times.
February 14, 2004: A1.
Kaufmann M. FDA Delays Decision on 'Morning After' Pill. Washington
Post, February 14, 2004: A15.
Opponents of Over-the-Counter EC Encourage FDA To Deny Approval for
Sale of Pills Without Prescription. Daily Kaiser Reproductive Health
Reports, February 13, 2004.
Randomised controlled trial of levonorgestrel versus the Yuzpe regimen
of combined oral contraceptives for emergency contraception. Lancet,
1998, 352:428-433.
HHS
Admits Distortion of National Healthcare Qualities Report
February 2004-After exhaustive study, HHS Scientists released a draft
report in June 2003 designed to track "prevailing disparities in
health care delivery as it relates to racial factors and socioeconomic
factors in priority populations".1
However, the final report released by HHS in December differed greatly
from the initial report by eliminating key findings and the use of the
word "disparity".2 After great
protest from members of Congress, as well as the public health and scientific
communities for manipulating these findings, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson
admitted that the Department was wrong to alter scientific conclusions
and that the mistake was going to be rectified.3
The original version of the report is now posted on the Association for
Healthcare Research and Quality website.4
"Hit
list" targets scientists studying HIV prevention, sexuality October 2003—The National Institutes of Health (NIH) was asked
by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to "justify" approximately
200 NIH-funded projects on a "hit list" compiled by the Traditional
Values Coalition, a conservative advocacy group.1 The projects—which
had been selected and approved through the NIH's rigorous peer review
process—relate to sexuality, sexual orientation, or HIV prevention.
NIH staff contacted the principal investigators for the listed projects,
asking for study summaries to justify the grants. After reports appeared
in the press, the House Committee said the investigations were a "mix-up"
but did not call for a halt in the inquiry. Tom Coates, professor at UCLA,
former director of the UCSF AIDS Research Institute, and principal investigator
for 14 grants on the "hit list" commented, "The general
feeling is one of fear and intimidation. Anyone who has engaged in this
kind of research and sees their name on such a list wonders if one's funding
is going to be in jeopardy."2
References
Kaiser
J. NIH roiled by inquiries over grants hit list. Science. 2003;302:758.
Russell S. AIDS, sex scientists on federal list fear their research
is in jeopardy. San Francisco Chronicle. October 28, 2003: A3.
Scientists
told to remove potentially controversial words from their grant applications April 2003—NIH staff have reportedly told scientists to "cleanse"
their grant application abstracts of potentially offensive words, according
to reports by Science and the New York Times.1,2 Removing words
such as "gay," "homosexual," "men who have sex
with men," "needle exchange," "abortion," "condom
effectiveness," and "commercial sex workers" is intended
to decrease the projects' visibility, at a time when scientists who study
AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases are being warned that their
research may face special scrutiny because the topics are politically
controversial. In late March 2003, Tooru Nemoto, a researcher at the University
of California, San Francisco, faced an on-site audit of his research projects,
which include efforts to prevent HIV infection in Asian sex workers. That
same month, a Congressional staffer had written to the NIH, raising concerns
about Nemoto's study and another study of sex workers and asking for detailed
information on all NIH-funded studies involving sex workers. The staffer
argued that attempts to protect the health of sex workers "seek to
legitimize the commercial sexual exploitation of women."2
References
Goode
E. Certain words can trip up AIDS grants, scientists say. New York
Times. April 18, 2003.
Kaiser J. Studies of gay men, prostitutes come under scrutiny. Science.
2003;300(April 18):403.
Ban
on stem cell research based on false estimate of available cell lines May 2003—Embryonic stem cells can develop into many different
kinds of tissues, raising hopes that they might ultimately contribute
to medical therapies for a number of chronic diseases. At the same time,
some pro-life activists have opposed the use of these cells, which are
usually derived from embryos created for in vitro fertilization. Two years
ago, President Bush banned federal funding for research using new embryonic
stem cell lines. As a compromise, his policy allowed research to continue
on existing cell lines, of which he said more than 60 were available.1
When scientists challenged that number, the Administration continued to
claim that dozens of cell lines were available to researchers. However,
scientists were unable to obtain the cell lines, and in May 2003, Elias
Zerhouni, NIH director, admitted to Congress that instead of 60, just
11 cell lines are available for use.2 Moreover, because all
of these lines were cultured with mouse cells and could potentially be
contaminated with mouse DNA or viruses, they may have limited application
for treatment in humans.3 Although scientists now have the
capability to grow human embryonic stem cells without the use of mouse
cells, research using these new lines cannot be funded by federal programs.
References
Lemonick
M. Stem cells in limbo: two years after President Bush said the U.S.
had all the cell lines it needed, where did they go? Time. August
11, 2003: 51.
Kennedy D. Stem cells: still here, still waiting. Science. 2003;300(May
9):865.
Wade N. Specter asks Bush to permit more embryonic cell lines. New
York Times. April 23, 2003: A24.
Revised
fact sheet on abortion and breast cancer leaves out key study November 2002— The National Cancer Institute revised a fact sheet
discussing whether induced abortion causes breast cancer. The original
document concluded that women who have had abortions have "the same
risk as other women for developing breast cancer," while the revised
version now says the studies are inconsistent.1,2 The largest—and
according to the American Cancer Society, probably most reliable—report
studied registry data for 1.5 million Danish women and found no association
between abortion and breast cancer.3 The study was published
in the New England Journal of Medicine. Although it was reviewed in the
previous fact sheet, it is not discussed in the new one. Instead, the
fact sheet states, "Some studies have reported statistically significant
evidence of an increased risk of breast cancer in women who have had abortions,
while others have merely suggested an increased risk. Other studies have
found no increase in risk among women who had an interrupted pregnancy."4
In doing so, the fact sheet does not distinguish between the large NEJM
study that used registry data and smaller, case- control studies that
are subject to recall bias as well as other methodological limitations.
After
the changes sparked a public outcry, the National Cancer Institute convened
a scientific review panel which reaffirmed the original conclusion.5
Nonetheless, a number of states have laws requiring physicians to counsel
patients that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.
References
Clymer
A. U.S. revises sex information, and a fight goes on. New York Times.
December 27, 2002: A17.
Ornstein C. Politics trumps science in condom fact sheet, Democrats
say. Los Angeles Times. December 19, 2002: A24.
Melbye M, Wohlfart J, Olsen J, et al. Induced abortion and the risk
of breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 1997;336(2):81-85.
Condom
fact sheet use omits data on results of sexual education programs December 2002—A fact sheet promoting the use of condoms to prevent
the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases was removed
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) web site. A
revised version, posted in December 2002, no longer mentions evidence
(included in the prior version) showing that sex education discussing
condom use does not lead to earlier sexual activity.1 The new
fact sheet's recommendations reinforce an abstinence-only message, beginning,
"The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases
is to abstain from sexual intercourse. . .." Critics charged that
the CDC was censoring scientific information inconsistent with the Administration's
support for abstinence- only programs.2 The new fact sheet
also calls for more research to establish that condoms can prevent the
spread of HIV and other STDs, conclusions that have been consistently
demonstrated.
References
Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center for HIV, STD
and TB Prevention. Fact sheet for public health personnel: male latex
condoms and sexually transmitted diseases. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/condoms.htm.
Accessed January 20, 2003.
Clymer
A. U.S. revises sex information, and a fight goes on. New York Times.
December 27, 2002: A17.
Appointee
to influential FDA committee criticized as "scantily credentialed" October 2002—The Bush Administration proposed W. David Hager,
a physician who recommends Scripture reading and prayer to heal headaches
and premenstrual syndrome, to chair the Food and Drug Administration's
powerful 11-member Reproductive Health Advisory Committee.1
The committee evaluates the safety and efficacy of drugs used in obstetrics,
gynecology, and related fields. Time magazine called Hager, the author
of As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now, a "scantily
credentialed doctor." Although his resume describes him as a University
of Kentucky professor, his appointment is voluntary and part-time, and
involves working with interns at an affiliated hospital. A search of Medline
(a National Library of Medicine database containing approximately 11 million
citations from over 4,600 biomedical journals) retrieved a total of four
publications authored by Hager in the past ten years. 2 Although
not given the chairmanship, he was appointed to the committee in December
2002.3 Joining him on the committee is Susan Crockett, a community
physician in the Christian Medical and Dental Society who has published
two articles (identified through Medline) in her career, the last in 1995.
References
Tumulty
K. Jesus and the FDA. Time. October 11, 2002: 26.
PubMed search using term "hager wd[au]" performed January
13, 2002 retrieved four articles in the past ten years related to obstetrics
and gynecology.
FDA News. FDA names 11 physicians to advisory committee for reproductive
health drugs [press release]. December 24, 2002. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2002/NEW00861.html.
Accessed December 25, 2002.
Peer-review
panel appointees screened for their political views November 2002—The National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) operates a peer-review panel to evaluate research grant
applications for their scientific validity and quality. Previously, under
both Democratic and Republican administrations, peer-review panel members
have been nominated by leading scientists in the field. According to the
Los Angeles Times, the NIOSH panel's chairman, staff, and officials had
proposed three members who were approved by the then-director of the institute.1
However, a few months ago, the proposed members were rejected by the office
of Tommy Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services, without explanation.
At least two of the proposed members have studied ergonomics and supported
an ergonomics standard, a policy that President Bush rolled back last
year. Potential members were reportedly asked for their views on ergonomics
and other policy issues, as well as whom they had voted for in the 2000
Presidential election.2
References
Zitner
A. Advisors put under a microscope. Los Angeles Times. December
23, 2002: A1.
Begley
S. Now science panelists are picked for ideology rather than expertise
[editorial]. Wall Street Journal. December 6, 2002: B1.
Promoter
of "reparative therapy" for homosexuals named to Presidential
AIDS advisory panel January 2003—Jerry Thacker, a Christian activist who has described
AIDS as the "gay plague" and homosexuality as a "deathstyle,"
was appointed to the 35-member Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and
AIDS (PACHA).1 Thacker promotes abstinence-only programs and
"reparative therapy" to treat homosexual behavior.2 Until
recently, the website of Thacker's Scepter Institute said that his presentations
discuss "how Christ can rescue the homosexual" and offer "tips
for ministry to those practicing this 'deathstyle.'"1
In speeches given at Bob Jones University, his alma mater, and summarized
on the University website (since removed at Thacker's request), Thacker
discussed "the sin of homosexuality" and his fear that others
might think that his own infection with HIV was the result of homosexual
behavior.2 The outcry resulting from his appointment led Thacker
to withdraw from the committee.
References
Kemper
V, Malnic E. AIDS panel choice criticized: the Bush team picks a religious
conservative who once called the disease 'the gay plague'. Los Angeles
Times. January 23, 2003.
Connolly C. Choice for AIDS panel withdraws after criticism. Washington
Post. January 24, 2003: A2.
Committee
to protect human subjects in research reorganized to emphasize embryos September 2002—The Department of Health and Human Services disbanded
a scientific group established to review protections for human subjects
in research. The Clinton-appointed committee had been created after a
number of volunteers were killed or injured in clinical trials. In October,
a new, smaller group—the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human
Research Protections—was chartered to "provide advice relating
to the responsible conduct of research involving human subjects with particular
emphasis on . . .pregnant women, embryos and fetuses."1
Embryos are clusters of cells in the earliest stages of human development.
Jonathan Moreno, a member of the old committee, refused to serve on the
new one, saying "They're clearly more interested in making ideological
points than in increasing human research protections."2
References
Weiss
R. New status for embryos in research. Washington Post. October
30, 2002: A1.
Weiss
R. New HHS panel makeup draws ire of patient advocates. Washington Post.
January 5, 2003: A9.
Funding
increases for unproven "abstinence-only-until marriage" programs
January 2004—The U.S. Social Security Act defines the educational
message for abstinence-only sexual education programs: they must teach
that "sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely
to have harmful psychological and physical effects" and that "a
mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is
the expected standard of human activity."1 Despite the
lack of evidence for their effectiveness, abstinence-only-until-marriage
programs have received unprecedented levels of funding.2 The
American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the
American Public Health Association, and the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists all support comprehensive sexual education programs
that encourage abstinence, while also providing adolescents with information
on how to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases.3
Thus far, however, the Administration has continued to increase funding
to programs that do not discuss condom use for reducing infection risk.
The Global AIDS bill, signed by President Bush in May 2003, requires that
one-third of all HIV prevention money be reserved for "abstinence-only"
programs.4 And at the May 2002 United Nations Special Session
on the Child, the U.S. delegation insisted that the conference declaration
endorse an abstinence-only-until-marriage approach.5
Two
of six appointees to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
(CDC) Advisory Committee on HIV and STD Prevention and three of nine to
the Advisory Committee to the Director of the CDC are affiliated with
two "abstinence-only" groups. The Medical Institute for Sexual
Health promotes marriage as "the only 100 percent effective way to
avoid nonmarital pregnancy and STD infection," while the Institute
for Youth Development is committed to an "abstinence-only" approach
to teen risk behaviors. New committee member Freda McKissic Bush, for
example, "teaches and encourages a lifestyle of abstinence until
marriage" and works in a practice "whose mission statement begins
acknowledging the Lordship of Jesus Christ in their personal and professional
lives."6
References
U.S.
Social Security Act. 510 (b) (2); 1996.
Dailard C. Abstinence promotion and teen family planning: the misguided
drive for equal funding. Guttmacher Report on Public Policy. 2002;February:1-3.
Welfare Reform: A Review of Abstinence Education and Transitional Medical
Assistance, April 23, 2002: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Health,
House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 107th Congress (2002) (testimony
of David W. Kaplan, MD).
Goldstein A, Morgan D. Bush signs $15 billion AIDS bill; funding questioned.
Washington Post. May 28, 2003: A02.
Sengupta S. Goals set by U.N. conference on children skirt abortion.
New York Times. May 11, 2002: A6.
White
House removes scientific information about climate change from EPA report;
ousts chair of international scientific panel on climate change June 2003—In June 2003, the New York Times reported that the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) report on the state of the environment
was heavily edited by the White House to delete scientific information
about global climate change. According to the Times, "a long section
describing risks from rising global temperatures [was] whittled to a few
non-committal paragraphs." An introductory sentence, "Climate
change has global consequences for human health and the environment"
was replaced with: "The complexity of the Earth system and the interconnections
among its components make it a scientific challenge to document change...."1
In April 2002, the U.S. opposed the re-election of the scientist
chairing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the major
international body tasked with assessing information for understanding
climate change, its potential impacts, and strategies for adaptation or
mitigation of its effects. Robert Watson, the American atmospheric chemist
who had chaired the organization for five years, was targeted for replacement
in a memo from an Exxon Mobil lobbyist to the White House.2
In 2001, under Watson's leadership, the IPCC had issued its assessment
that "[t]here is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming
observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
President Bush has challenged the existence of climate change and opposed
the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to limit emissions of the
greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.
References
Revkin
AC, Seelye KQ. Report by the EPA leaves out data on climate change.
New York Times. June 19, 2003.
Lawler A. Battle over IPCC chair renews debate on U.S. climate policy.
Science. 2002;296:232-233.
Fifteen
of 18 environmental health advisors replaced; critics raise concerns about
pro- industry bias August 2002—Science reported that the office of Tommy Thompson,
Secretary of Health and Human Services, had replaced fifteen of eighteen
members on an environmental health advisory panel.1 In recent
years, the Advisory Committee to the Director of the National Center for
Environmental Health (NCEH) has assessed the health effects of low-level
exposures to environmental chemicals. Richard Jackson, the NCEH director,
was not consulted on the changes. One of the departing members, Ellen
Silbergeld, a renowned toxicologist, professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg
School of Public Health, and recipient of a MacArthur Foundation "genius"
fellowship, has worked with environmental and public health groups. Several
of the new panel members have chemical industry ties. Dennis Paustenbach
defended the Pacific Gas and Electric Company against Erin Brockovich.
Roger McClellan is the former president of the Chemical Industry Institute
of Technology, a North Carolina research firm supported by chemical company
dues. Becky Norton Dunlop, vice president of the Heritage Foundation,
a conservative think tank, had fought against environmental regulation
while Virginia's secretary of natural resources.2 David Michaels,
a professor of public health at George Washington University who served
in the Clinton administration, said of this and other recent changes to
advisory committees, "They're stacking committees to get the advice
they know they want to hear, which is a charade."3
References
Ferber
D. Critics see a tilt in a CDC science panel. Science. 2002;297:1456.
Weiss R. HHS seeks science advice to match Bush views. Washington
Post. September 17, 2002: A01.
Zitner
A. Advisors put under a microscope. Los Angeles Times. December
23, 2002: A1.
Expert
panel on lead poisoning allegedly stacked
August 2003—The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning reviews scientific data
and helps develop public policies to prevent lead poisoning. Traditionally,
appointments to the panel have been made by senior CDC scientists and
approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. In 2002, however,
the Secretary rejected the appointments of three highly qualified lead
experts, and instead nominated five scientists that critics fear were
chosen for being "industry-friendly."1 New appointee
William Banner Jr., for example, has testified for the lead industry that
lead is only harmful at blood levels above 70 to 100 micrograms per deciliter,
or seven to ten times the current CDC recommendations. Joyce Tsuji, who
declined her nomination, is principal scientist for Exponent, a consulting
company whose corporate clients include a major lead smelter. Critics
have expressed concern that the advisory committee was reorganized just
as it began looking at evidence for setting a stricter lead-exposure standard.
References
Ferber
D. Overhaul of CDC panel revives lead safety debate. Science.
October 25 2002;298:732.
